[MD] A fine mess

[Ham Priday]

Hi Bodvar --


> Bo calling Ham.
>
> 9 Dec. you referred to my definition of the intellectual level:
>
>> > I understand it as THE VALUE OF THE
>> > SUBJECT/OBJECT DISTINCTION.
>
> and said:
>> This has a certain ring of truth to it, as does its corollary
>> principle, which you've previously stated as: "Intellect is
>> the Value of the S/O divide."  It's what got me interested
>> in your SOL thesis a couple of years ago.  This concept
>> works as a metaphysical principle much better than the
>> Quality hierarchy.  The problem I have with it is
>> a semantic one.
>
> "Ring of the truth" yes, I hope, but FYI it does not represent
> any metaphysical principle different from the MOQ,
>
>> The term "intellect", which is a carry-over from Pirsig's fourth
>> level, is most commonly understood to mean "the capacity for
>> rational or intelligent thought."  It seems that you are using it
>> to mean "awareness" -- "the power of knowing", which is a
>> less common understanding on the word.
>
> Right, the term "intellect" means the capacity for rational thought
> (intelligent is superfluous) but then what is rational thought?
>
> For example the "Oxford Advanced " dictionary"
>
>    "The power of mind to reason contrasted with feeling and
>    instinct"
>
> Omitting "power of mind (which is the same as "the capacity for)
> leaves  feeling (emotion) which  is the essence  of SUBJECTIVISM
> and reason the ditto of OBJECTIVISM, thus intellect is the capacity to
> distinguish between these two. The confusion stems from the said
> "power of ..." and/or "the capacity for ..." which has become intellect
> itself.

If you remove feeling (e.g., desire and emotion) from what you're calling 
Intellect, you eliminate Value (Quality) which is the essence of Pirsig's 
thesis.

> As I say in my SOL essay:
>
>    WHAT SCREWS IT ALL UP IS THE NOTION OF A
>    SUBJECT DOING THE INTELLECTUALIZATION,
>    WHILE IT IS INTELLECT THAT DOES THE
>    SUBJECT/OBJECT-IVIZATION.

If you remove the subject from this definition, you eliminate the 
possibility of realizing value.  As I said above, Value is sensed 
psycho-emotionally.  Unrealized Value is an epistemological absurdity.

But you have answered my previous question.  You do not believe in the 
subjective being-aware as the proprietary locus of experiential existence. 
Intellect, Value, and Subjectivity are all patterned "aggregates" to you. 
Sorry, Bo.  I thought we had a breakthrough, but I guess it was just hopeful 
thinking.

Regards,
Ham